Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutionality Validity of Section 5(v) of HMA, 1955; Rejects Plea Challenging Prohibition of Marriage Between Sapindas”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today upheld the constitutionality of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which prohibits marriages between sapindas, unless sanctioned by custom. The judgment was passed in the case of W.P.(C) 910/2024, where the petitioner, Neetu Grover, challenged the section citing its violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench, comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed, “The Petitioner seeks to challenge Section 5(v) of the HMA Act on the ground that though her marriage with her distant cousin Mr. Gagan Grover was consensual, he has abdicated his responsibilities towards the Petitioner and her son by taking recourse to the impugned Section.” The Court noted the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of statutes enacted by the Parliament and emphasized that a statute can be declared unconstitutional only under specific established grounds.

In dismissing the petition, the Court remarked, “We are of the considered opinion that, no tenable grounds in law for challenging the said impugned provision have been placed before this Court during arguments or pleaded in the petition.”

The petitioner had argued that the impugned Section was violative of Article 14 as it denied her the right to be in a valid marriage with Mr. Gagan Grover, her distant cousin, due to the lack of proof of custom in her community. However, the Court found that the Petitioner’s marriage fell within the prohibited category of sapindas as recognized under the HMA and was not saved by any exception of custom or usage.

Further, the Court held, “This Court is unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the exception in the impugned Section is only for marriages between persons on the basis of custom having force of law, which requires stringent proof and its existence is to be adjudicated upon by Court of law.”

Date of Decision: 22nd January, 2024

NEETU GROVER VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News